This case was an appeal from the Supreme Court, where the defendant was categorized as a Level Two sex offender.

The defendant had originally pleaded guilty for the use of a child in a sexual performance (violation of Penal Law 263.05). Before being released from prison the Supreme Court held a SORA hearing. After the hearing, the court gave the defendant 20 points for risk factor 13, which established him as a Level Two sex offender.

By order of the Supreme Court on May 13, 2016, which heard a case against the defendant who is a level 1 sex offender. The case was unanimously affirmed.

The question before the court was whether the defendant should be required to register as a level one sex offender due to his conviction, because of unlawful surveillance by the defendant. The defendant was accused of making cell phone videos under women’s dresses on the subway. The matter is appealable but the issue the defendant raises isn’t triable.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered on 11-20-14 against the defendant. The defendant was found guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the 3d degree and possession of drug paraphernalia in the 2nd degree. Pursuant to PL section 220.50 [1]- [3], the defendant argues that there was no direct evidence of constructive possession and therefore he should never have been convicted. The trial court erred in failing to provide a circumstantial evidence instruction to the jury. This court agrees. The judgment against the defendant is reversed and a new trial is granted.

Police officers executed a search warrant at the residence of the defendant’s girlfriend. The girlfriend leased this apartment in her name. When the police searched the premises, they found baggies of cocaine throughout the apartment, as well as paraphernalia in the form of scales, sandwich baggies and dillutant. The defendant’s name was on mail left at the apartment, but otherwise, it didn’t appear that he lived there.

The question before the court is whether the people have established through clear and convincing evidence that the defendant was a stranger to the victim at the time of the rape. The answer will determine whether he is a Level 2 sex offender based on the facts, the court says yes.

On February 21, 2017 the defendant plead guilty to rape in the 3d degree pursuant to Penal Law 130.25(3). He was sentenced pursuant to a plea bargain to incarceration for 1 ½ years in state prison followed by 6 years of probation. He was released on June 20, 2017. The Board of Examiners for Sex Offenders recommend the court adjudicate defendant a level 2 sex offender based on various risk factors. One risk factor is challenged, risk factor number 7, which is the relationship of the defendant and the rape victim. The defendant introduced evidence that he and the victim were acquainted. The court says he is wrong.

The court agrees with the police report that the defendant was a stranger to the victim, who was 13 years old at the time and the defendant was 25. The victim and her classmate ditched school and took a subway to the Bronx. Her classmate met a male friend there, and the 3 “hung out” for awhile. The victim was the left alone in the defendant’s apartment and was raped during this time.

A defendant was indicted for multiple counts of handgun possession and a single count of possession of weapons with intent to sell, the defendant, waived a jury and the case was tried by the court. Decision was reserved pending submission of briefs. This is the decision and its reasoning. The case could have been tried on an agreed statement of facts; the only issue for the court to decide and upon which my decision turns is the defendant’s state of mind during the time he purchased and stored the handguns.

A Kings Estate Lawyer said that, on April 15, 1985, pursuant to a search warrant, officers of the New York City Police Department searched the defendant’s room in a YMCA and recovered 14 handguns and a quantity of ammunition. The defendant had been employed as a cab driver and hoped to open a sporting goods store; the weapons had been purchased as stock for the yet to be opened store. The police learned of his cache through his procurement of the necessary federal licenses to make the initial wholesale purchases.

DWI in NY: Driving While Intoxicated – VTL 1192.3 Driving While Intoxicated is a dangerous habit among the drivers in the country. It is said that it is not just dangerous; the law likewise punished the drivers who are found to be intoxicated while driving. Driving While Intoxicated is just a part of crimes which are punishable while driving, the law also provides for the following crimes which can be violated while driving – DWI (Driving While Intoxicated), DWAI (Driving While Ability Impaired) and DUI (Driving Under the Influence) – but regardless of the particular offense in New York (both NYC and Westchester), prosecutors and judges take these charges very seriously.

A New York DWI Lawyer said that we have handled numerous DWIs, DWAIs and DUIs here in our firm, whether they are charged as VTL 1192.1, VTL 1192.2, VTL 1192.2-a or VTL 1192.3. A particular question which a layman frequently asked us is “how can I be charged with DWI if there is no breathalyzer or intoxilizer that indicates how much alcohol I had in my system?” In answering their question, we first ask for the circumstances surrounding their problem. Once we already determined the main problem, we give them an advice which will benefit them. In the question stated above, the answer is quite simple. As we call it in the criminal law field, a person can be held liable for DWI even without a chemical test. This can be done by using the observation of the arresting officer based on the appearance of the driver and if indeed the latter was intoxicated. This is also known as the “Common Law” DWI.

An appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered May 24, 1977, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree and robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of defendant’s motion to suppress statements.

Judgment reversed, on the law, motion granted, plea vacated, and case remitted to the County Court for further proceedings consistent herewith.

An appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered May 24, 1977, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree and robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of defendant’s motion to suppress statements.

Judgment reversed, on the law, motion granted, plea vacated, and case remitted to the County Court for further proceedings consistent herewith.

An offender, indicted for the crimes of grand larceny in the second degree (six counts), grand larceny in the third degree (three counts), petit larceny (one count), criminal tampering in the second degree (five counts), and theft of services (five counts), brings this omnibus motion to (1) inspect the grand jury minutes and dismiss the indictment due to insufficient evidence before the grand jury; (2) to dismiss specific counts in the indictment because they are duplications of and inconsistent with other counts and (3) to dismiss the theft of services counts on the ground that the presumption created by section 165.15 of the Penal Law is unconstitutional.

The counts charged in the indictment arise out of the theft of approximately 3,391,000 cubic feet of gas from a Union Gas Company. The theft of gas was accomplished through bypasses, pieces of pipe attached to the gas company’s lines, which allow one who is not a gas customer to obtain gas by tapping gas company lines and receiving free service.

In a Criminal Court Complaint, the People assert that a Police Officer observed the offenders at the Subway station. The officer allegedly watched the offenders “acting in concert” receive United States currency from four individuals, “in exchange for which the offenders swiped a Metrocard through the subway turnstile for each of these individuals, thereby allowing the said individuals to enter the transit system.”

The offenders were charged with Petit Larceny, five counts of Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in the Third Degree, and Obstructing Governmental Administration in the Second Degree, all Class A misdemeanors. By motion, one of the offenders seeks the dismissal of all charges contained in the Criminal Court Complaint, asserting that the People’s complaint is facially insufficient and pursuant to CPL Sec. 170.35, 100.40 and 100.15, asserting that the People’s complaint is facially insufficient.